ESG Enforcement Tracker

A Southern California District Court (the Court) has denied Bumble Bee’s motion to dismiss key claims brought by four Indonesian Fisherman (the Plaintiffs) alleging they were subjected to forced labour on vessels supplying tuna to the company.  

The Plaintiffs filed a claim on 12 March 2025, alleging violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and California negligence law. The claims were centred on the allegation that Bumble Bee sourced albacore tuna, and sold it in U.S. grocery stores, from longline vessels that relied on their forced labour.  

The Plaintiffs worked on longline vessels within Bumble Bee’s “trusted fleet”, and it was uncontested that the vessel owners and their agents subjected the workers to “eighteen-hour workdays, verbal and physical abuse, threats of violence, threats to call the authorities, and no pay.”  

The Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages, and Bumble Bee sought the dismissal of all claims.

In respect of the TVPRA claims, Bumble Bee argued that the alleged conduct occurred outside of the United States and the civil remedies under the TVPRA did not allow extraterritorial claims to proceed. Bumble Bee also argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled the elements of a civil TVPRA claim, namely, a knowing benefit to Bumble Bee, participation in a venture with the vessel operators, or that Bumble Bee knew or should have known about the forced labour.

In respect of the claims in negligence, Bumble Bee argued there was a lack of jurisdiction and no duty of care was owed to the plaintiffs as there was no “special relationship” with the vessel owners or operators.

The Court rejected Bumble Bee’s TVPRA arguments, finding that the TVPRA does allow extra territoriality in specific circumstances, which were met in this matter as Bumble Bee is a U.S. company. The Court further found it plausible that Bumble Bee received a knowing financial benefit through the resale of the tuna in U.S. stores and that the company’s involvement with the offending vessels, including sponsorship of fishery improvement projects, the audit and monitoring of vessels, and exclusive supply relationships, amounted to “active, ongoing support” and not merely a commercial transaction.  

The Court noted that reports and public allegations about forced labour in the fleet were widely available during the relevant period and supported the assertion that Bumble Bee “should have known” about the conditions.

As the Court had found there to be jurisdiction for the TVPRA claim, it held that this was sufficient to establish jurisdiction for the negligence claim. The Court also found that a duty of care was present as a special relationship did exist and the harm to the plaintiffs was foreseeable. A special relationship was found, in part, due to Bumble Bee setting and enforcing certain policies on vessel operators and participating in fleet oversight.

Although most of Bumble Bee’s dismissal arguments were denied, the Court did dismiss the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. It ruled that the TVPRA does not provide for such relief and the plaintiff’s submission that they “continue to suffer harm” did not show the requisite likelihood of future harm under negligence principles. The claim for injunctive relief was dismissed without prejudice and with the plaintiff granted leave to amend their claim, the deadline for which has since passed.

The case will now proceed on the basis of the TVPRA and negligence claims.